But
there is a deeper problem lurking in the definition of conservatism presented
by my honorable opponent, the pundit.He
observes that

Conservatism regards politics as a
craft similar to carpentry and farming. Skill and success depend on personal
understanding of practices and traditions handed down from generation to
generation. Effective statesmen absorb and act on the embedded knowledge and
practices of the people they represent, in the nation they belong to, and in
the daily flux of its political system. Political experience is specific to the
moment and the place …

There is considerable appeal in the
idea of “politics as a craft similar to carpentry and farming”; it conjures up
images of honest, hard-working, homespun types skilled at their handiwork. And, appealing imagery aside, it is true that
in general, as their name suggests, conservatives appreciate “personal
understanding of practices and traditions handed down from generation to
generation”; true, also, that conservatives expect or at least wish for a kind
of cultural milieu where they can be unified to the people around them: where a
politician can be truly a man of the people, one who shares their interests and
tendencies, and not merely someone who represents them accidentally.

But in our country’s current state,
do we really wish for a politician who represents the interests and tendencies
of the average American?If so, I doubt
that Trump is very far off.That’s not
intended as a snark or a slam against either Trump or Americans; it is a simple
statement of fact.

But if one does (as I do) wish for a
more thoughtful political world, and if one is also conservative, it would seem
that conservatives in politics really do have to—temporarily at least—abandon
the fiction that they are exactly like those they represent.They are in fact probably better able to
understand the nuances of the law and of political negotiation.

Many conservatives, of course, have
already realized this.But in deciding
that they know politics better than their constituents, they have also decided
(1) that this makes them morally superior, and (2) that this absolves them from
any need to really explain what they are doing the hoi poloi.

In fact, the realization that he
knows more than ordinary people ought to profoundly disconcert a politician;
and he ought to take it gnostically, as a sign of his own greatness, but
humbly, as a sign that he is called to serve people not just by legislating,
but also precisely by bridging the gap between himself and them.He should, in other words, be more than an
advocate: he should be a teacher.He
should be Atticus Finch with Boo Radley, not Atticus Finch with Tom
Robinson.Rrather than fishing for his
constituents he should teach them how to fish—how to think—for themselves.

The measure of the good a politician
can do for his country is not how much he can get done while in office, but how
much his people will be able to do once he is out of it.

But all of this, of course, required
humility, which is antithetical to fallen human nature in the first place, and
especially difficult to cultivate when one’s profession involves being in front
of or in charge of anybody.

Says
the teacher.

But the fundamental lack of humility
is not the only problem lurking in the claim that “Conservatism regards
politics as a craft.” There is a factual
issue with the claims as well.The metaphor,
taken strictly, implies that outsiders do not belong in politics: that “[e]ffective
statesmen” should be men of political experience, even of familial experience:
that we should in fact have a political class (Quincys, Roosevelts, Kennedys,
Bushes, Clintons) who will, through their “personal understanding of practices
and traditions handed down from generation to generation,” guide us safely
through the troubled waters of whatever it is that we are sailing perpetually
through.

But this vision is antithetical to
the vision my honorable opponent the pundit recognizes in his final lines, when
he says that “the conservative idea of politics” is “to always strive towards
the unattainable ideal of making [politics] redundant.”That is a fine idea, and one perfectly in
line with my claim that conservatives should teach the electorate mental
fishery.It is also congruent with the
idea often attributed to the American founders that statesmen should be
citizens first and statesmen second: that they should, if at all possible,
serve temporarily and then get the thunder out of the Capitol.

Fish
and guests, my grandfather says, start to stink after three days.

And
we give politicians three years?

The ideal politician, according to
every conservative from de Tocqueville down to my honorable opponent, himself,
is one who—though seeing politics as a craft—does not see political experience
as being critical to that craft.

Which is why it is ridiculous, for
my honorable opponent at least, to argue that Trump cannot be conservative
because he thinks, or purports to think, that political experience is worse
than useless.That is, by many
conservatives own admission—and apparently by popular conservative consent—a
very conservative position to take.

Attacking the man with arguments as misleading
as his own is to become guilt of the very thing for which he could actually be
criticized: for failing to teach us local yokels fishing.